Now that I have some more time, I will try to express my feelings on the original statement to the best of my ability.

First, I must respond to a previous post.

Quote:

Kevin Leavitt wrote:

The problem with the logic of the parable is that you assume God and the rock are two separate and distinct things. If God is omnipotent, then why can't be also "BE" the rock?

Duality can get you into trouble if you ask me! If you strip it out of the equation, it no longer matters anyway since God would be in everything and everywhere all at once.

However, many religions also have an issue with this logic as many believe in a separate, living, and distinct God of which humans are literally the Children of God and while "God-like" not in and of God, but a creation.

To each, his own!

I absolutely agree that duality although having it's place, can be very dangerous, and I also agree that "god" and the 'rock' can be considered the same thing. However I feel the rock can be proven to exist which makes it's explaining easier, but from a "christian" stand point (as I know it) this is not possible, and I will elaborate on this later in the post.

Before I continue, I would like to say that I respect each individuals right to believe whatever it is they choose to, and that no other person, or group of people, has the right to say to another that they are correct or not. Just as a group has no more right to silence one person, as one person has a right to slience a whole group. I also believe that duality is an essential part of our existence, i.e. there can be no good without evil, no love without hate etc. .... Labels if you will.

When speaking from a christian standpoint, we must first observe and respect; without observation we cannot truly see where our christian neighbors are coming from, and without respect we cannot comprehend their arguments. What we must not do however is forget the bad that comes with the good of these arguements, (I am reminded of the saying, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it") and with fear of getting to far off topic, I will try to make my point as clearly as possible in the shortest amount of time that is needed.

When talking about an "Omnipotent" or "Omni-anything" diety we must first assume that if such being or entity exists there is absolutely no way that the human mind would be able to comprehend or understand it's actions or thoughts. There could be no way that the eternal source of all things could fit into our minds.
"the Tao that can be told, it not the Eternal Tao" further "the Way the can be weighed is not the Eternal Way" etc.

Quote:

Benjamin Pooley wrote:

Belief is defined as the "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence."

I think to fully understand we must go to the root,
the conviction of "truth".This argument as to what defines truth especially when it comes to religion has been one that has been done many times, by many people and for fear of "beating a dead horse" I will simply state my opinions and move on, I believe truth to be a fact that has been verified, "5 + 2 = 7" is a true statement, as is "the sun rises in the east". These are examples of how I see truth.

"For what it's worth, I heard that an atheist is someone that G-d does not believe in, not the other way around."

Speaking from an athiest standpoint, "How can something that does not exist not believe in me?"

An atheist is defined by the Australian Atheist Foundation as...
"A person who does not believe in the existence of gods, goddesses, fairies, spirits, angels, ghosts, trolls, leprechauns, bunyips, nymphs, etc.

One can take a nominal figure and say that humans have conceived of at least 10,000 gods. Christians say that 9,999 of these are false -- atheists reject the whole 10,000.

When talking about Athiest we must look at the fact that everyone is born an athiest. It is an accident of birth which determines the indoctrination of becoming a Hindu, a Moslem, a Jew or any of a multitude of Christian denominations and to induce a child to believe in basically anything one chooses, i.e. santa claus, faries, god(s), heaven, hell, etc. is fairly easy. Religion is primarily a matter of infant brainwashing continued endlessly generation after generation with no one thinking to check the basic claims. The environmental culture and peer pressure reinforces the home indoctrination."

To further understand an athiest viewpoint.....

"Common sense dismisses the story of Noah's Ark as a primitive myth and the idea of sacrificial offerings and atonement are unworthy of a good god. It is possible to be punished for another person's wrongdoing but guilt cannot be transferred. When the immoral story of Adam and Eve is seen as a folk tale then the idea of 'original sin' disappears together with the need for a saviour."

The idea that love can be commanded is diametrically opposite to the nature of love and must be rejected.

If we were all to approach this with a neutral mind (which including myself, is impossible due to enviormental conditioning) it may become clear, but alas no such event has been done in human history. We can all say what is fact but the truth of the matter is simple.... There are three sides to every story, Your side, My side, and what really happened (is, etc.).

From a chrisitan standpoint...
(I am not going into denominational preferance, just basic tenents)

There is a heaven, a hell, along with a god, a satan, angels, demons, purgatory, a good, an evil etc.

A common misconception is that cristianity is a monotheistic religion, when in fact it is really duotheistic. Satan acting on 'his' own volition making 'his' own choices, seperate from "god's will"
seperating 'him' as an individual entity forces us to recognize the duotheistic quality of christianity (not including the three-is-one trinity, which under scrutiny shows us christianity is really quadrotheistic, as the three seperate beings from one stem represent) When we observe this not including the bible we can see that the main structure and foundation of this religion is based on this duality complex, and as such, is so the universe.

This whole thread makes me think of a movie I once saw (Kevin Smith's Dogma) Where in it, the character playing god (Alanis Morissette) could not directly speak to people and needed her angel to translate her point, this was due to the fact that if ever a 'mortal' or 'underling' to god were to ever hear it/her/him speak the listeners head would explode because it could not handle such a powerful and direct transmission(?) from such an entity.

Anyway, as a taoist of sorts (can one truly be a toaist?), I can apply this line of thinking to my everyday life, and integrate it in how I approach the world and existence or lack thereof, and when it really comes down to it.... I guess "What is truth?" is only something you can answer.

Anyway just my bits with no real structure. Thank you for reading.
Eddie